ÿWPC   ¸,¶dÊ©óY]Øآ‰‘ÑžDKÚA@ÅíìHðÍuÖA#?“bªÓÿbh‰„<Ðõvå-¢Öëós&¶”V ¸àÐ¥EQŸW5ÁDæ¸2*†[¨„/•Äç.ÃêY÷¢ìôF.š2-Ï bFwj¸ÓSR3˜v&@óRYÐ#})Dú˜ñXY6~•;_<‚o…[°OûkÐqÚC®?=Úýk‹áŸ^›&+9sÚâíëVߺâÔ$ÝñòéFµg ™lˆTÈü mPcÌTã) \ÅÿêÇtññÃÕçaëH>>½_½B+0ÖÑä­èLÀ«¦/;Ö)ÂÐXõ¼* Ó` Ó躄”|»ÙŽˆFÛ¢*a Aâ„™³Á_õs‰’u±|ó©­IX™ûQI —‹W2§Ín©ÖÒmUžÌ#8-ª=]ŒìQ†%뚃yïÆÖ¶ñâ·lTÄ"}9 ŠÚãR?»Ar4=(¥^ ¿T–Èû2ßϺ-3§§#v¨j¸ÉÐJ¾¤<“ÈU=<Á]®Ýá'ÖùŽô’XÔË,˜{Q¿}÷Å2\ç¸ùn]§ÿ{øcÌ3éoÞÉCdé2šü»˜/Za¨4$¸B# œUN§ %õ 0(ûw@#4cwf†aˆfœažf²a´fÈaÊÞ höÞ h Ô hhÝ fE aG f[ a] fq as f‡ a‰ f aŸ "³ BÕ 0lò f^ a` ft av fŠ aŒ f  f¢ f¤ a¦ h׺ h,‘ hB½ hÄÿaÃa×fëaí 0D h{E h¡À hUa h¶ h,Ï h û hK hO h,UU 0D 0[ŘHP LaserJet IIPHPPCL,È,ðð,,È0vLÞÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ õ&Uö&U÷&Pø&Eù&Dú&Dû&Dü&Pý&Eþ&EÃ]%.3|xþ&ÔTABLE AÔTABLE BÔTABLE CÔTABLE C ÐTABLE A             ÍTABLE B                   ÎTABLE C ÔTABLE DÔTABLE DÔTABLE DÔTABLE AÔTABLE A Ñ ² ÑÑ ² Ñ d((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔTABLE FÔTABLE CÔTABLE CÔÔÔTABLE C ËTABLE D TABLE GTABLE AÔTABLE E(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÐTABLE AÐTABLE A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ÉTABLE F!##%%%' ''''''''''''ÐTABLE A'(((ÊTABLE G()111($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¨à$¥¥Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝѲ°ÑѲ°ÑÒ²°ÒÒ²°ÒÑ7€…VXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€—O ÑÔ€ŠcôŠXXÔÑTR\Üp/!b53Ø'ÿ3Ø'ÿ3Ø'TÑñç&ñNeeds€to€be€in€MSWORD€w€conference€template€„€fix€tabs€and€IPAÐ ² Ðñç&ñÌò òMarkedness€and€the€typology€of€epenthetic€vowelsó óà r àà Ê àà " àà z àÐ ®ü ÐLinda€LombardiÌUniversity€of€Maryland,€College€Parkñè&ñÌÌTo€appear€in€ñé&ññè&ñProceesiñè&ññé&ññê&ñproñê&ññë&ññê&ñvñê&ññë&ññì&ñceedings€of€Linguistics€añì&ññí&ññì&ñd€ñì&ññí&ññî&ñnd€Pñî&ññï&ññî&ñoñî&ññï&ññð&ñhonetics€2ñð&ñññ&ññð&ñ20ñð&ñññ&ññò&ñ002ñò&ñÌÔ€&̃&ŠŠcôÔÌUsing€cross„linguistic€evidence€from€the€relationship€of€epenthetic€vowel€choice€to€the€vowel€system€of€a€givenÏlanguage,€this€paper€proposes€a€set€of€context„free€markedness€constraints€on€vowel€features.€€Universally€rankedÏconstraints€yield€the€result€that€front€vowels€are€more€marked€than€back€and€that€round€vowels€are€marked;Ïlanguages€may€vary€in€how€they€rank€the€markedness€of€low€and€nonlow€vowels.€€If€low€vowels€are€unmarked€theÏepenthetic€vowel€is€[a].€€If€nonlow€vowels€are€unmarked,€the€epenthetic€vowel€is€the€least€marked€possible€given€theÏvowel€system€of€the€language.€[ðUð]€is€epenthetic€if€present;€[ðBð]€is€epenthetic€if€it€is€present€and€[ðUð]€is€not;€these€vowelsÐ ®ü  Ðare€unmarked€on€the€backness€and€rounding€dimensions.€€If€neither€ððcentralðð€vowel€is€part€of€the€system,€theÏepenthetic€vowel€will€generally€be€[i]:€constraint€conflict€forces€the€choice€of€a€more€marked€front€vowel€in€order€toÏavoid€violations€of€markedness€on€the€mid€and€round€dimensions.ÌÔ€ŠcôŠ&&̃ÔÌò ò1.€Introduction€„€Consonant€epenthesis€variabilityó óÐ  X ÐIt€has€often€been€claimed€that€representational€simplicity€accounts€for€why€€particular€segmentsÏtend€to€appear€€in€epenthesis€(eg,€Paradis€and€Prunet€1991,€Rice€2001).€€Concentrating€on€PlaceÏfeatures,€then,€an€epenthetic€glottal€stop€would€be€a€segment€with€no€Place.€€ÌÌà  àHowever,€this€approach€has€a€number€of€problems.€Languages€may€differ€in€their€choiceÏof€epenthetic€consonant.€€Work€on€Coronal€underspecification€has€argued€that€Coronals€haveÏno€Place€features,€based€partly€on€the€claim€that€Coronals€may€be€epenthetic.€€If€a€language€hasÏboth€coronals€and€glottals,€then€we€must€have€some€way€to€distinguish€them,€but€the€coronalÏunderspecification€literature€has€never€worked€out€the€details€of€how€this€is€done.€€€We€wouldÏalso€expect€natural€class€effects€of€coronals€and€glottals,€which€have€not€been€well€supported€inÏthe€literature.€€Finally,€different€representations€would€be€required€for€glottals€in€differentÏlanguagesòò1óó.€In€some€languages,€like€Arabic,€glottal€stop€and€[h]€pattern€in€a€natural€class€withÐ Þ, Ðthe€guttural€consonants,€so€they€in€those€languages€they€must€have€Place€features.ÌÌà  àAs€I€have€shown€in€previous€work,€(Lombardi€to€appear)€we€do€see€both€coronal€andÏglottal€epenthesis,€both€across€and€within€languages.€€But€rather€than€evidence€for€differentÏrepresentations€in€different€languages€and€contexts,€such€variation€is€a€classic€case€ofÏOptimality„Theoretic€constraint€conflict.€OT€recognizes€that€there€are€different€dimensions€ofÏmarkedness€and,€via€constraint€ranking,€explains€why€not€all€of€them€may€be€perfectly€satisfiedÏat€the€same€time.€€€I€assume€that€the€Major€Place€feature€of€glottal€stop€is€Pharyngeal,€followingÏMcCarthy€(1994).€€We€then€can€add€*Phar€to€the€bottom€of€Smolensky€(1993)'s€PlaceÏmarkedness€scale:ÌÌ(1)€€€€€€€€€€*Lab,€*Dor€>>€*Cor€>>€*PharÌÌIf€no€other€considerations€intervene,€glottal€stop€will€be€the€optimal€epenthetic€consonant,€sinceÐ ¦,ô(+ Ðit€has€the€lowest€ranked€violation€on€this€scale.ÌAs€we€see€in€(2),€the€high€ranked€constraints€make€epenthesis€the€optimal€response€to€hiatus,€soÏthe€competition€is€between€candidates€like€a€and€b€with€different€inserted€consonants.€€TheÏPlace€markedness€scale€makes€the€choice€in€favor€of€glottal€stop,€which€has€the€lowest€rankedÏviolation.ÌÌ(2)ÌÔ*wƒ%&ddd Xdd Xdd X²&$²&$wÔÔ,ždd ÔÔ,ždd ÔÔ,ždd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  – ä Ð/gao/Ð  ú H Ð(Max,€Onset)Ð  ú H  Ð*CorÐ  ú H  Ð*PharÐ  ú H  Ѐð+ð€€a.€gað…ðoÐ  Š Ø  ÐÐ  Š Ø  ÐÐ  Š Ø Ð*Ð  Š Ø Ѐ€€€€€€b.€gatoÐ  h  ÐÐ  h  Ð*!Ð  h  ÐÐ  h  Ѐ€€€€€€c.€gaÐ  ªø  Ð*!Ð  ªø  ÐÐ  ªø  ÐÐ  ªø  Ѐ€€€€€€d.€ga.oÐ  :ˆ  Ð*!Ð  :ˆ  ÐÐ  :ˆ  ÐÐ :ˆ   ÐÌHowever,€sometimes€other€constraints€make€it€impossible€to€choose€glottal€stop€in€epenthesis;Ïthen,€given€the€principle€of€minimal€violation,€you€still€get€a€relatively€unmarked€Place,Ïcoronal.€€€In€the€following€examples,€a€preference€for€sonorant€codas€conflicts€with€*PlaceÏconstraints.€€In€theñó&ñÌñó&ññô&ñ€ñô&ñBristol€dialect€of€English€schwa„final€words€take€an€epenthetic€/l/€in€theÏcoda€as€we€see€in€(3)€(Hughes€and€Trudgill€1979).ÌÌ(3)ÌÔ*ˆƒ(/ddždd ždd ždd dd %&²&$²&$ˆÔÔ,ždd ÔÔ,ždd ÔÔ,ždd ÔÔ,Ïdd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  F”# Ð/ivðBð/Ð  ªø$ ÐSonCoda›Ð  ªø% Ð*CorÐ  ªø& Ð*PharÐ  ªø' Ðð+ðivðBðlÐ  :ˆ( ÐÐ  :ˆ) Ð*Ð  :ˆ* ÐÐ  :ˆ+ ÐœivðBðð…ð›Ð  Ê, Ðœ€€€€*!›Ð  Ê- ÐÐ  Ê. Ð*Ð Ê/  ÐœÌI€assume€glottal€stop€is€an€obstruent,€a€true€stop€(as€do€a€majority€of€those€who€have€proposedÏbasic€feature€definition:€see€Lombardi€to€appear€for€references).€Thus€glottal€stop€violates€theÏhigh€ranked€constraint€preferring€the€coda€to€be€sonorant.€€A€sonorant€must€be€chosen,€and€[l]Ïstill€has€a€fairly€low€ranked€Place,€Coronal.€€€Due€to€constraint€conflict,€then,€Coronla€is€theÏbest€we€can€do€on€the€Place€markedness€scale€in€this€case.ÌÌà  àIn€Tunica€(Haas€1940)€we€see€both€coronal€and€glottal€epenthesis€in€a€single€language.€ÏThe€contexts€make€phonological€sense,€€so€it€is€straightforward€to€acheive€the€difference€viaÏconstraint€ranking.€€Phrase„final€words€must€end€in€a€consonant,€so€/n/€is€epenthesized€word„¼finally:ÌÌ(4)€€€€à  à€regular€formà º àphrase„final€form€€€€€€€€(Tone€omitted)Ð Æ*'; Ðà  àà b àhatikaà º àà  àà j àhatikanà  àà r àð ðagainððÐ Â+(< Ðà  àà b àsahkuà º àà  àà j àsahkunà  àà r àð ðoneððÐ ¾, )= ЇCertain€kinds€of€words€with€final€stress€must€add€a€prothetic€final€syllable€in€order€to€be€able€toÏtake€epenthetic€final€/n/.€€This€added€syllable€has€glottal€stop€onset€and€a€copy€vowel,€and€/n/€inÏthe€coda:ÌÌ(5)à  àRegular€formà  àà j àà  àPhrase„final€formà Ê àà " àGlossÐ ¢ð Ѐà  àà b àrià º àà  àà j àà  àri?inà  àà r àà Ê àhouseÐ žì Ðà  àà b àkeà º àà  àà j àà  àke?enà  àà r àà Ê àwaspà " àÐ š è Ðà  àà b àruà º àà  àà j àà  àru?unà  àà r àà Ê àhickoryà z àÐ – ä ÐÌ(6)€(*Place€marks€for€the€underlying€/r/€are€omitted.)ÌÔ*ˆƒ'0ddždd ždd ždd Ïdd (/²&$²&$ˆÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  Š Ø  Ð/ri/Ð  î <  Ð*SonCodaÐ  î <  Ð*CorÐ  î <  Ð*PharÐ  î <  Ðri?i?Ð  ~Ì  Ð*!Ð  ~Ì  ÐÐ  ~Ì  Ð**Ð  ~Ì  Ðð+ðri?inÐ  \  ÐÐ  \  Ð*Ð  \  Ð*Ð  \  ÐrininÐ  žì ÐÐ  žì Ð**!Ð  žì ÐÐ žì  ÐÌThus€we€see€within€a€single€language,€even€a€single€form,€€different€results€for€markedness€inÏonset€and€coda.€€Because€the€onset€is€not€subject€to€a€requirement€of€high€sonority,€the€leastÏmarked€Place,€Phar,€is€optimal.€€But€in€the€coda,€which€must€be€sonorant,€the€best€we€can€do€isÏCoronal.ÌÌà  àThis€analysis€does€not€require€two€different€consonants€in€the€same€language€to€beÏPlaceless,€with€the€resulting€worry€about€distinguishing€them.€€It€also€allows€us€to€haveÏconsistent€representations€for€all€segments.€€We€donððt€have€to€say€glottal€stop€has€Place€inÏArabic€and€no€Place€in€Tunica,€nor€that€coronals€are€Placeless€in€some€situations€but€have€PlaceÏin€others,€such€as€where€they€participate€in€natural€class€effects€including€the€more€markedÏcoronals€(see€McCarthy€and€Taub€1992).€ÌÌà  àOT„internal€arguments€for€lack€of€specification€are€certainly€possible€(for€example,€IÏhave€argued€for€privative€voice€within€OT,€Lombardi€2001).€€But€representational€assumptionsÏmust€be€reexamined€in€a€new€theory,€since€they€are€based€upon€theory„internal€arguments.€€TheÏanalysis€with€ranked€markedness€constraints€shows€that€we€do€not€need€underspecification€toÏaccount€for€markedness€effects€in€epenthesis.€€Since€we€need€ranked€markedness€constraints€forÏother€reasons€anyway,€there€is€no€advantage€to€assuming€an€underspecification€analysis€forÏthese€cases.€ÌÌò ò2.€€Vowel€epenthesis:€the€questionó óÐ v(Ä$/ ÐGiven€that€an€OT€analysis€can€account€for€different€epenthetic€consonants€via€constraintÏconflict€without€underspecification,€the€obvious€next€question€to€ask€is€about€vowels.€€VowelÏepenthesis€shows€much€more€variability€than€consonant€epenthesis.€€Can€we€similarly€accountÏfor€it€with€ranked€markedness€constraints?Ð j,¸(3 Їà  àSimilarly€to€consonant€epenthesis,€vowel€epenthesis€has€been€accounted€for€viaÏunderspecification,€for€example€schwa€is€often€claimed€to€be€featureless.€€But€many€differentÏvowels€can€be€epenthetic.€€To€account€for€differences€in€epenthetic€vowels€viaÏunderspecification,€different€representations€for€the€same€vowels€in€different€languages€haveÏbeen€assumed.€€These€different€representations€seem€even€more€stipulative€than€in€theÏconsonant€case,€€since€so€many€different€epenthetic€vowels€are€attested.ÌÌà  àI€will€argue€that€we€can€account€for€the€differences€in€vowel€epenthesis€via€rankedÏmarkedness€constraints€with€fully€specified€representations,€as€for€consonants.€I€will€show€thatÏdifferences€in€possible€epenthetic€vowels€are€not€arbitrary;€they€depend€on€the€vowel€system€ofÏthe€language€and€show€that€only€a€minimal€amount€of€free€reranking€of€markedness€is€possible..ÌÌThe€data€on€which€I€base€my€generalizations€is€summarized€in€the€Appendix..€€Note€thatÏnaturally€we€are€ignoring€cases€where€the€quality€of€the€epenthetic€vowel€is€determined€byÏcontext,€such€as€vowel€harmony,€since€these€obviously€involve€the€action€of€additionalÏconstraints€which€outrank€context„free€markedness.ÌÌMany€observations€have€been€made€about€epenthetic€vowel€possibilities€but€no€real€systematicÏgeneralizations€have€been€proposedòò2óó.€€Based€on€my€survey€of€the€data€I€find€the€followingÐ j¸ Ðmarkedness€relationships€among€vowels.€€Previous€authors€have€sometimes€noted€one€or€theÏother€piece€of€these€generalizations,€but€the€overall€connections€have€never€been€made.ÌÌ(7)a.à  àLanguages€may€vary€in€whether€low€or€nonlow€vowels€are€lessñõ&ñÐ Z¨ Ðñõ&ñ€à  àà b àmarked.€€If€€low€vowels€are€less€marked€the€epenthetic€vowel€will€beñö&ñÐ V¤ Ðñö&ññ÷&ñà  àñ÷&ñ€à b à/a/.€€€*low,€*nonlow:€rerankableÐ R  Ѐ€€€€b.€If€nonlow€vowels€are€less€marked,€other€constraints€choose€among€ñø&ñà z àñø&ñthem:Ìà  àBack€vowels€are€less€marked€than€front€vowels:€*Front€>>€*BackÌà  àMid€vowels€are€marked:€*MidÌà  àRound€vowels€are€marked:€*[+round]€>>€*[„round]ÌÌThe€free€ranking€of€height€constraints€makes€sense,€since€we€have€no€evidence€from€vowelÏsystems€of€any€implicational€relationship.€Vowel€systems€always€have€a€height€distinctionÏalthough€they€(arguably)€may€be€able€to€lack€most€other€distinctions.€€The€other€vowelÏdistinctions€have€a€universal€markedness€ranking€as€we€see€for€Place€features€for€consonants.ÌÌà  àThis€set€of€constraints€makes€strong€predictions€about€the€possible€epenthetic€vowelÏgiven€the€sound€system€of€a€particular€language.€€€Setting€aside€the€low€vowel,€the€least€markedÏvowels€are€/ðUð/€and€/ðBð/:€€they€are€back€and€unrounded.€/ðUð/€is€the€less€marked€of€the€two,€since€it€isÐ (l$% Ðnot€Mid.€€Where€these€vowels€appear€in€systems€they€are€likely€to€be€the€epenthetic€vowel.€ÏWhere€they€are€not,€languages€will€choose€the€least€marked€vowel€possible.€€ÌAssuming€the€ranking€where€[low]€is€more€marked,€which€allows€us€to€see€the€rest€of€theÏpossible€variability,€the€results€are€as€in€(8):ÌÐ  -X)* Ð(8)à  àIf€/ðUð/€is€present€it€will€be€epenthetic:€Nonlow,€nonmid,€back,€nonroundÐ ² Ðà  àIf€/ðUð/€is€not€present€but€schwa€is,€schwa€will€be€epenthetic:€Nonlow,€ñù&ñà z àñù&ññý&ñà z àñý&ñback,€nonroundÐ ®ü Ðà  àIf€neither€schwa€nor€/ðUð/€is€present,€€the€usual€epenthetic€vowel€is€/i/,€ñú&ñà z àñú&ññþ&ñà z àñþ&ñwhich€is€nonmid€ñü&ñÐ ªø Ðà  àà b àñü&ñand€nonround,€even€though€itððs€more€marked€ñû&ñà  àà  àñû&ñin€Frontness.ÌÌThere€are€a€few€cases€that€seem€to€stand€outside€these€generalizations.€€I€will€return€to€these€inÏSection€4.€€ÌÌIn€the€next€section€I€will€show€how€the€constraint€rankings€result€in€the€different€vowels€inÏdifferent€systems.€€I€will€begin€with€the€smaller€systems,€which€lack€the€central€vowels€and€soÏhave€more€marked€vowels€in€epenthesis.ÌÌò ò3.Rankingsó óÐ ‚Ð  Ðò ò3.1€Five€vowel€systemsó óÐ ‚Ð  ÐIn€such€systems,€the€epenthetic€vowel€is€either€/i/€or€/a/.€If€*nonlow>>*low,€€€/a/€is€epenthetic.Ï/a/€is€unmarked€both€in€height,€and€on€Front/Back€scale,€which€is€not€rerankable.ÌÌ(9)ÌÔ*ˆƒ dddd dd dd dd '0²&$²&$ˆÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  rÀ Ð/pig/Ð  Ö$ Ð*FrontÐ  Ö$ Ð*BackÐ  Ö$ Ð*nonlowÐ  Ö$ Ð*lowÐ  Ö$ ÐpigiÐ  f´ Ѐ€€*!Ð  f´ ÐÐ  f´ Ѐ€€€*!Ð  f´ ÐÐ  f´ Ðð+ðpigaÐ  öD ÐÐ  öD Ѐ€€€€*Ð  öD ÐÐ  öD  Ѐ€€€*Ð öD!  ÐÌRelative€ranking€of€the€height€and€place€hierarchies€doesnððt€matter,€because€they€donððt€conflict:Ïboth€agree€that€/a/€is€least€marked.€€Thus€!€is€marked€on€both€of€the€violations.ÌÌThe€other€possible€Back€vowel€is€more€marked€than€/a/€in€this€language€because€of€the€rankingÏof€the€height€constraints,€but€also€because€of€the€universal€ranking€*[+round]€>>€*[„round].€€SoÏa€variety€of€relative€rankings€of€these€hierarchies€can€result€in€/a/€epenthesis€€€Reranking€theÏconstraintÌpairs€in€(10)€makes€no€difference€to€the€results.ÌÌ€(10)ÌÔ*™ƒdddd dd dd dd dd  ²&$²&$™ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  ö$D!, Ð/pig/Ð  Z%¨!- Ð*FrontÐ  Z%¨!. Ð*BackÐ  Z%¨!/ Ð*+roundÐ  Z%¨!0 Ð*„roundÐ  Z%¨!1 Ð*nonlowÐ  Z%¨!2 Ð*lowÐ  Z%¨!3 Ðð+ðpigaÐ  ê&8#4 ÐÐ  ê&8#5 Ѐ*Ð  ê&8#6 ÐÐ  ê&8#7 Ѐ€€€*Ð  ê&8#8 ÐÐ  ê&8#9 Ѐ€€*Ð  ê&8#: ÐpiguÐ  z(È$; ÐÐ  z(È$< Ѐ*Ð  z(È$= Ѐ€€*!Ð  z(È$> ÐÐ  z(È$? Ѐ€€*!Ð  z(È$@ ÐÐ z(È$A  ÐÌSince€the€height€constraints€are€rerankable,€another€possibility€is€*low€>*nonlow.€€This€is€theÏmore€interesting€case€for€our€purposes:€Since€languages€have€more€nonlow€vowels,€this€isÏwhere€we€will€be€able€to€see€the€action€of€additional€markedness€constraints€to€choose€amongÐ š,è(D Ðthem.ÌÌEven€with€that€ranking€of€the€height€constraints,€if€they€are€ranked€below€*Front>>*Back,€€/a/Ïcan€still€be€optimal,€depending€on€where€*round€is€ranked,€as€we€see€in€(11).ÌÌ(11)ÌÔ*»ƒddZdd Zdd Zdd Zdd Zdd Zdd Zdd ²&$²&$»ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ, dd ÔÔ, dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  š è Ð/pig/Ð  þ L Ð*FrontÐ  þ L Ð*Back€€€€€€Ð  þ L  Ð*roun¼dÐ  ú H  Ð*lowÐ  þ L  Ð*nonlowÐ  þ L  ÐpigiÐ  Š Ø Ѐ€€*!Ð  Š Ø ÐÐ  Š Ø ÐÐ  Š Ø Ѐ€€€Ð  Š Ø Ѐ€€€*Ð  Š Ø ÐpiguÐ  h  ÐÐ  h  Ѐ€€€€*Ð  h  Ѐ€€€*!Ð  h  ÐÐ  h  Ѐ€€€€*Ð  h  Ðð+ðpigaÐ  ªø  ÐÐ  ªø  Ѐ€€€€*Ð  ªø  ÐÐ  ªø  Ѐ€€*Ð  ªø  Ѐ€€€Ð ªø   ÐÌÌBut€if€the€height€constraints€are€ranked€above€*Front>>*Back,€the€result€is€€/i/€epenthesis.€/i/€isÏpreferable€to€/a/€because€it€is€more€important€to€be€[„low]€than€to€be€unmarked€on€theÏfront/back€scale,€as€we€see€in€12.ÌÌ(12)ÌÔ*ªƒ  dddd dd dd dd dd dd ²&$²&$ªÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  º& Ð/pig/Ð  l' Ѐ€€*lowÐ  l( Ѐ*nonlowÐ  l) Ѐ*FrontÐ  l* Ð*BackÐ  l+ Ðð+ðpigiÐ  ®ü, ÐÐ  ®ü- Ѐ€€€€*!Ð  ®ü. Ѐ€€€*Ð  ®ü/ ÐÐ  ®ü0 ÐpigaÐ  >Œ1 Ѐ€€€€*Ð  >Œ2 ÐÐ  >Œ3 Ѐ€€€€€Ð  >Œ4 Ѐ€€€*Ð >Œ5  ÐÌÌThe€only€other€possible€nonlow€vowel€in€a€three€vowel€system,€/u/,€is€ruled€out€by€€*[+round],Ïas€we€see€in€13.Ì(13)ÌÔ*™ƒdddd dd dd dd dd  ²&$²&$™ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  V!¤: Ð/pig/Ð  º!; Ð*lowÐ  º!< Ð*nonlowÐ  º!= Ð*+roundÐ  º!> Ð*„roundÐ  º!? Ð*FrontÐ  º!@ Ð*BackÐ  º!A Ðð+ðpigiÐ  J#˜B ÐÐ  J#˜C Ѐ*Ð  J#˜D ÐÐ  J#˜E Ѐ€€€*Ð  J#˜F Ѐ€€€*Ð  J#˜G Ѐ€€Ð  J#˜H ÐpiguÐ  Ú$(!I ÐÐ  Ú$(!J Ѐ*Ð  Ú$(!K Ѐ€€*!Ð  Ú$(!L ÐÐ  Ú$(!M Ѐ€Ð  Ú$(!N Ѐ*Ð Ú$(!O  ÐÌHere€we€see€real€effects€of€constraint€conflict.€€€It€is€not€possible€to€be€lowest€ranked€on€bothÏscales€due€to€the€conflict,€so€the€more€marked€vowel€on€back/front€dimension€is€optimal.ÌÌ(As€you€can€see€from€this€tableau,€it€would€be€possible€for€[u]€to€be€epenthetic€€if€round€andÏlow€hierarchies€were€reversed€in€this€tableau.€€I€will€return€to€this€in€section€4.)ÌÌIn€a€five€vowel€system€the€result€is€the€same.€€Either€/a/€or€/i/€are€possible€depending€on€rankingÐ ê,8)V Ðof€height€constraints.€€If€it€is€*nonlow€>>€*low,€/a/€will€be€optimal€since€it€best€satsifies€bothÏhierarchies:ÌÌ(14)ÌÔ*»ƒddZdd Zdd Zdd Zdd Zdd Zdd Zdd ²&$²&$»ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  ¢ð Ð/pig/Ð  T Ð*FrontÐ  T Ð*BackÐ  T Ð*nonlowÐ  T Ð*lowÐ  T  ÐpigiÐ  – ä  Ѐ€€*!Ð  – ä  ÐÐ  – ä  Ѐ€€€*!Ð  – ä  ÐÐ  – ä ÐpigeÐ  & t Ѐ€€€*!Ð  & t ÐÐ  & t Ѐ€€€*!Ð  & t ÐÐ  & t ÐpiguÐ  ¶   ÐÐ  ¶   Ѐ€€€€€*Ð  ¶   Ѐ€€€*!Ð  ¶   ÐÐ  ¶   ÐpigoÐ  F”  ÐÐ  F”  Ѐ€€€€€*Ð  F”  Ѐ€€€€*!Ð  F”  ÐÐ  F”  Ðð+ðpigaÐ  Ö$  ÐÐ  Ö$  Ѐ€€€€*Ð  Ö$  ÐÐ  Ö$ ! Ѐ€€€*Ð Ö$ "  ÐÌÌIn€the€latter€case,€the€markedness€of€mid€vowels€doesnððt€actually€come€into€play€„€that€they€areÏnonlow€is€sufficient€to€rule€then€out€that€they€are€nonlow.ÌÌWith€the€opposite€ranking€of€the€low€constraints,€/i/€is€still€optimal.€The€markedness€constraintÏon€mid€vowels€becomes€crucial,€no€matter€where€it€is€ranked.ÌÌ(15)ÌÔ*™ƒ12dddd dd dd dd dd ²&$²&$™ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  Þ,+ ÐpigÐ  B, Ð*lowÐ  B- Ð*nonlowÐ  B. Ð*FrontÐ  B/ Ð*BackÐ  B0 Ð*MidÐ  B1 Ðð+ðpigiÐ  Ò 2 ÐÐ  Ò 3 Ѐ€€*Ð  Ò 4 Ѐ€€*Ð  Ò 5 Ѐ€€€Ð  Ò 6 ÐÐ  Ò 7 ÐpigaÐ  b°8 Ѐ€€*!Ð  b°9 Ѐ€€Ð  b°: ÐÐ  b°; Ѐ€€€€€€*Ð  b°< ЀР b°= ÐpigeÐ  ò@> Ѐ€€Ð  ò@? Ѐ€€€*Ð  ò@@ Ѐ€€€*Ð  ò@A Ѐ€€€€€Ð  ò@B Ѐ€€€*!Ð ò@C  ÐÌMore€discussion€of€issues€regarding€the€ranking€*Mid€constraint€will€be€found€in€section€4.Ìò òÌ3.2:€More€complex€systems:€ð ðCentralðð€vowelsó óÐ #dF ÐSo€far€we€have€seen€that€a€variety€of€rankings€give€the€same€results€in€3€and€5€vowel€systems.€€ÏIf€€*nonlow>>*low,€€/a/€is€epenthetic€(9,10),€as€well€as€if€*low€>*nonlow,€but€front/back€andÏ*round€are€high€(11,14).€But€if€€*low€>*nonlow€is€more€important€than€front/back€markednessÏthe€epenthetic€vowel€is€€/i/€(12,13,15).ÌÌBut€we€have€limited€ourselves€to€only€very€simple€vowel€systems.€€Although€these€cases€areÏfamiliar,€we€now€need€to€look€at€the€important€cases€that€have€the€vowels€I€claimed€areÏunmarked.€€These€vowels€are€often€described€as€central€but€assuming€a€minimum€number€ofÏvowel€features€they€are€analyzed€as€[+back€„round].€€These€vowels,€€/ðBð/€and€/ðUð/€are€epenthetic€inÐ ö+D(O Ðpreference€to€other€nonlow€vowels€€in€languages€that€have€them€in€their€system.€€This€isÐ ò,@)P Ðbecause€they€are€unmarked€on€€the€markedness€scales€we€have€already€discussed:€back,€nonÏlow,€€nonround.ÌÌWith€only€/ðBð/€in€the€system€and€the€ranking€*low>>*nonlow€the€optimal€epenthetic€vowel€willÐ ¦ô Ðbe€/ðBð/.€€€€Relative€ranking€of€front/back€and€height€hierarchies€doesnððt€matter:€they€donððtÐ ¢ð Ðconflict€on€their€evaluation€of€schwa.ÌÌ(16)ÌÔ*ªƒ  dddd dd dd dd dd dd 12²&$²&$ªÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  ’ à Ð/pig/Ð  ö D  Ð*lowÐ  ö D  Ð*nonlowÐ  ö D  Ð*frontÐ  ö D  Ð*backÐ  ö D  ÐpigiÐ  † Ô  ЀР † Ô  Ѐ€€€*Ð  † Ô  Ѐ€€*!Ð  † Ô  ÐÐ  † Ô  ÐpigaÐ  d  Ѐ€€*!Ð  d  ÐÐ  d  Ѐ€€Ð  d  Ѐ€€€*Ð  d  Ðð+ðpigðBðÐ  ¦ô  Ѐ€€Ð  ¦ô  Ѐ€€€€*Ð  ¦ô  ÐÐ  ¦ô  Ѐ€€€*Ð ¦ô   ÐÌThis€result€is€the€same€in€a€5€vowel€system.€/e/€will€have€a€fatal€*Front€violation€that€schwaÏdoes€not€have,€and€/o/€has€a€more€marked€value€of€round.ÌÌOf€course€a€language€with€/ðBð/€in€the€system€can€have€€/a/€epenthesis€instead,€since€€heightÐ Â  Ðmarkedness€is€rerankable,€as€in€(17).ÌÌ(17)ÌÔ*™ƒdddd dd dd dd dd  ²&$²&$™ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  ²$ Ð/pig/Ð  d% Ð*nonlowÐ  d& Ð*lowÐ  d' Ð*FrontÐ  d( Ð*BackÐ  d) ÐpigiÐ  ¦ô* Ѐ€€€€*!Ð  ¦ô+ Ѐ€€€Ð  ¦ô, Ѐ€€*Ð  ¦ô- ÐÐ  ¦ô. Ðð+ðpigaÐ  6„/ Ѐ€Ð  6„0 ÐÐ  6„1 Ѐ€€Ð  6„2 Ѐ€€€*Ð  6„3 ÐpigðBðÐ  Æ4 Ѐ€€€€*!Ð  Æ5 Ѐ€€€Ð  Æ6 ÐÐ  Æ7 Ѐ€€€*Ð Æ8  ÐÌContinuining€to€consider€languages€with€more€complicated€vowel€systems,€a€fairly€commonÏepenthetic€vowel€is€[ðUð].€€In€fact,€in€most€€languages€that€have€this€vowel€and€have€evidence€ofÐ ê!8: Ðepenthesis€it€is€the€epenthetic€vowel.€Of€course€[a]€is€also€possible€with€the€same€ranking€asÏ(17).€€But€if€nonlow€is€less€marked,€the€epenthetic€vowel€is€/ðUð/€.€It€is€preferable€to€schwa,€whichÐ â#0 < Ðis€mid,€and€to€the€other€nonlow€back€high€vowel,€/u/,€which€is€round,€as€we€see€in€(18):ÌÌ(18)€ÌÔ*™ƒ!"dddd dd dd dd dd ²&$²&$™ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  Ò' $@ ÐpigÐ  6(„$A Ð*lowÐ  6(„$B Ð*nonlowÐ  6(„$C Ð*FrontÐ  6(„$D Ð*BackÐ  6(„$E Ð*MidÐ  6(„$F ÐpigiÐ  Æ)&G ÐÐ  Æ)&H Ѐ€€*Ð  Æ)&I Ѐ€€*!Ð  Æ)&J ÐÐ  Æ)&K ÐÐ  Æ)&L Ðð+ðpigðUðÐ  V+¤'M ÐÐ  V+¤'N Ѐ€€€*Ð  V+¤'O ÐÐ  V+¤'P Ѐ€€€€€*Ð  V+¤'Q ÐÐ  V+¤'R ÐpigðBðÐ  æ,4)S ÐÐ  æ,4)T Ѐ€€€*Ð  æ,4)U ÐÐ  æ,4)V Ѐ€€€€€*Ð  æ,4)W Ѐ€€€€*!Ð æ,4)X  ÐÌAs€can€be€seen€from€this€tableau€this€is€the€most€unambigious€result€in€the€paper.€€Under€anyÏranking€of€the€rerankable€constraints€here,€the€result€is€the€same.€Ìò òÌ4.€Some€remaining€data€and€ranking€issuesó óÐ ¦ô ÐÌñþ&ñÑ—O ÑѲ²ÑѲ²ÑÑ  Ññþ&ñ€€Recall€tableau€(16),€repeated€here€with€*Mid€added:ÌÌ(19)ÌÔ*ªƒ#$dddd dd dd dd dd dd !"²&$²&$ªÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ, dd ÔÔ, dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  – ä  Ð/pig/Ð  ú H  Ð*lowÐ  ú H  Ð*nonlowÐ  ú H  Ð*frontÐ  ú H  Ð*backÐ  ú H  Ð*MidÐ  ú H  ÐpigiÐ  ŠØ  ЀР ŠØ  Ѐ€€€*Ð  ŠØ  Ѐ€€*!Ð  ŠØ  ÐÐ  ŠØ  ÐÐ  ŠØ  ÐpigaÐ  h  Ѐ€€*!Ð  h  ÐÐ  h  Ѐ€€Ð  h  Ð*Ð  h  Ѐ€€€Ð  h  Ðð+ðpigðBðÐ  ªø  Ѐ€€Ð  ªø  Ѐ€€€€*Ð  ªø  ÐÐ  ªø  Ð*Ð  ªø  Ѐ€€€*Ð ªø !  ÐÌFor€schwa,€a€mid€vowel,€to€be€epenthetic,€we€must€have€*Mid€below€both€of€these€twoÏhierarchies€(which€do€not€have€a€required€relative€ranking.)€€If€it€were€at€the€top,€for€example,Ïwe€would€get€/i/€epenthetic,€as€the€sad€face€shows€us€in€(20):ÌÌ(20)ÌÔ*ªƒ)*dddd dd dd dd dd dd #$²&$²&$ªÔÔ,dd ÔÔ, dd ÔÔ, dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ,dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  ¾ ' Ð/pig/Ð  "p( Ð*MidÐ  "p) Ð*lowÐ  "p* Ð*nonlowÐ  "p+ Ð*frontÐ  "p, Ð*backÐ  "p- ÐððpigiÐ  ². ÐÐ  ²/ ЀР ²0 Ѐ€€€*Ð  ²1 Ѐ€€*Ð  ²2 ÐÐ  ²3 ÐpigaÐ  B4 ÐÐ  B5 Ѐ€€*!Ð  B6 ÐÐ  B7 Ѐ€€Ð  B8 Ѐ€€€*Ð  B9 ÐpigðBðÐ  Ò : Ð*!Ð  Ò ; Ѐ€€Ð  Ò < Ѐ€€€€*Ð  Ò = ÐÐ  Ò > Ѐ€€€*Ð Ò ?  ÐÌ€But€the€data€shows€that€€/i/€epenthesis€only€occurs€in€languages€that€do€not€have€schwa.€€TheÏproblem€results€from€assuming€that€that€*Mid€is€freely€rerankable€with€respect€to€otherÏmarkedness€constraints.€€€The€epenthesis€facts€show€that€there€is€not€in€fact€this€much€freedom.€€ÏSo€as€we€normally€do€in€such€a€situation,we€can€account€for€the€facts€with€universal€rankings,Ïwhich€correctly€express€the€generalizations€in€question€as€in€(21):ÌÌà  à(21)à b àround€constraints€>>€*mid,€€€€€€€front/back€constraints€>>€*midÐ â%0"F ÐÌOther€proposed€universal€hierarchies€that€I€know€of€are€all€rankings€of€different€values€of€theÏsame€feature.€€However,€these€are€not€all€plus/minus€oppositions,€since€the€different€PlaceÏfeatures€are€generally€assumed€to€be€universally€ranked€as€well.€€There€seems€to€be€noÏprincipled€reason€to€exclude€rankings€like€(21)€if€they€are€supported€by€the€phonologicalÏevidence.òò3óóÐ Ê+(L ÐÐ Æ,)M Їà  àAnother€case€where€we€might€consider€such€a€ranking€comes€from€(13)€repeated€here.€ÏIn€order€to€get€the€effect€that€in€a€language€where€the€epenthetic€vowel€is€high€and€the€onlyÏchoices€in€the€system€are€/i/€and€/u/,€we€need€to€rank€the€constraints€on€rounding€above€those€onÏbackness:ÌÌ(22)ÌÔ*ªƒdddd dd dd dd dd dd )*²&$²&$ªÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ,Zdd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  š è Ð/pig/Ð  þ L Ð*lowÐ  þ L Ð*nonlowÐ  þ L  Ð*+roundÐ  þ L  Ð*„roundÐ  þ L  Ð*FrontÐ  þ L  Ð*BackÐ  þ L  Ðð+ðpigiÐ  Ž Ü ÐÐ  Ž Ü Ѐ*Ð  Ž Ü ÐÐ  Ž Ü Ѐ€€€*Ð  Ž Ü Ѐ€€€*Ð  Ž Ü Ѐ€€Ð  Ž Ü ÐpiguÐ   l  ÐÐ   l  Ѐ*Ð   l  Ѐ€€*!Ð   l  ÐÐ   l  Ѐ€Ð   l  Ѐ*Ð  l   ÐÌ€€As€you€can€see€from€this€tableau,€it€would€be€possible€for€/u/€to€be€epenthetic€€if€round€andÏlow€hierarchies€were€reversed€in€this€tableau.€ÌÌà  àFor€both€of€these€cases,€the€real€issue€is€that€while€we€expect€epenthesis€to€result€inÏunmarked€segments,€the€vowels€€/u/€and€/e/€are€marked€under€any€view€of€the€facts€aboutÏvowels.€€€For€example€MaddiesonÔ_Ô€(1983:€142)€notes€that€unexpected€gaps€in€systems€suggestÏthat€/u/€is€the€most€marked€vowel,€/e/€second€most€marked.€€€ÌÌà  àThe€question€that€needs€to€be€answered,€then,€is€not€why€these€vowels€are€unmarked€inÏcertain€languages;€it€is€why€we€find€cases€of€epenthesis€ofÌmarked€vowels.€€When€we€look€at€the€question€in€this€way,€the€answer€we€expect€to€find€isÏdifferent.€€In€fact€it€appears€that€where€there€are€well€attested€cases€of€epenthesis€of€markedÏvowels€in€well€described€languages,€these€cases€have€special€qualities:€contextual€factors€areÏrelevant,€for€example,€or€there€are€special€morphological€restrictions.€€Therefore,€additionalÏconstraints€must€be€contributing€to€the€situation,€obscuring€the€expected€results€of€the€context„¼free€markedness€constraints.ÌÌà  àFor€both€the€[u]€and€[e]€cases€additional€research€is€required,€but€so€far€my€researchÏindicates€that€the€issues€appear€to€be€different€for€the€two€vowels.€€It€is€unclear€whether€trueÏphonological€[u]€epenthesis€is€really€possible€(see€the€Appendix€for€discussion).€€If€it€is€not,€theÏround/low€ranking€in€(22)€is€universal.€€In€contrast,€[e]€epenthesis€is€well€attested,€but€it€appearsÏthat€it€is€usually€explainable€by€contextual€effects.€Kitto€and€DeLacy€(1999)€note€that€in€8€lgsÏwith€epenthetic€/e/,€it€was€almost€always€in€closed€syllables€and€note€that€languages€often€haveÏalternations€/ðBð/„>[e]€in€closed€syllables.€€€For€example€in€Hebrew€there€is€epenthesis€of€/ðBð/€inÐ ê%8"3 Ðopen€syllables€and€/e/€in€closed,€because€there€is€no€/ðBð/€in€open€Ô_Ôsyllables.€Examples€like€this,Ð æ&4#4 Ðthen,€show€additional€contextual€effects€that€donððt€disconfirm€the€context„free€generalizations€IÏhave€described.€€Additional€cases€of€[e]€epenthesis€that€seem€likely€to€submit€to€such€anÏexplanation€are€Spanish,€Basque€(Hualde€1991)€(in€both,€the€epenthetic€vowel€is€always€in€aÏclosed€syllable)€and€Gengbe€(Abaglo€and€Archangeli€1989).€€Additional€examples€are€discussedÏin€the€Appendix.ÌÐ Î,): ÐÑ—O ÑѲ²ÑѲ²ÑÑ  Ñò ò5.ó ó€ò òFaithfulness:€€Some€issues€in€vowel€systems.ó óÐ ² ÐSo€far,€we€have€assumed€that€the€vowel€systems€are€given:€the€generalizations€are€of€the€form,Ïif€such€a€vowel€is€possible€it€will€be€epenthetic.€€But€the€issue€of€how€the€possible€vowels€areÏdetermined€has€been€sidestepped:€that€is,€there€is€no€Faithfulness€in€any€of€the€tableaus.ÌÌà  àMy€main€concern€in€this€paper€is€to€determine€the€what€the€context€free€markednessÏconstraints€are.€€In€order€to€see€the€effects€of€these€constraints€without€interference€the€evidenceÏcomes€from€epenthesis,€since€faithfulness€constraints€do€not€apply€to€epenthetic€vowels,€whichÏhave€no€counterpart€in€the€input.€€The€correct€formulation€of€vowel€faithfulness€constraints€isÏoutside€the€scope€of€this€paper.€ÌÌà  àHowever,€there€is€an€issue€that€is€directly€relevant€to€my€claims:€I€have€claimed€thatÏcertain€vowels,€schwa€and€[ðUð],€are€low€marked,€but€these€vowels€do€not€occur€in€all€languages.€€Ð ŠØ  ÐIf€they€are€unmarked,€why€donððt€all€languages€allow€them?ÌÌà  àThe€data€from€consonant€epenthesis€show€a€similar€effect.€Glottal€stop€is€the€mostÏoptimal€epenthetic€consonant,€so€it€seems€to€be€the€least€marked.€€But,€not€all€languages€haveÏglottal€stop€in€their€systems.ÌÌà  àImplicational€relations€and€markedness€are€traditionally€assumed€to€be€directlyÏconnected:€A€is€less€marked€than€B€because€the€presence€of€B€in€a€system€implies€A.€€€ÏNevertheless,€most€markedness€claims€of€this€kind€have€some€exceptions€and€can€only€be€statedÏas€tendencies.€€In€OT€we€can€see€why€this€is€the€case:€because€constraints€conflict.€€No€singleÏimplicational€relationship€will€always€hold€true€because€different€kinds€of€markedness€fight€itÏout:€because€languages€can€differ€in€ranking,€other€constraints€can€force€the€violation€of€aÏmarkedness€hierarchy.€€In€the€case€of€glottal€stop,€it€is€low€marked€on€the€*Place€scale.€€But€inÏother€respects€glottal€stop€is€a€problematic€consonant.€€It€is€not€very€perceptible.€€As€we€see€inÏEnglish,€it€only€occurs€in€onset,€since€itððs€even€less€perceptible€in€coda.€€So€glottal€stop€isÏunmarked€in€production€terms€but€marked€in€perceptual€terms.€€Different€languages€resolve€thisÏconflict€differently.€€So€although€glottal€stop€is€€unmarked€on€one€dimension,€it€is€also€markedÏon€another€,€and€the€latter€may€result€in€it€being€absent€from€a€system.ÌÌà  àA€similar€situation€seems€to€arise€with€the€back€unrounded€vowels.€€They€are€unmarkedÏin€articulatory€terms,€which€is€formalized€by€the€constraints€we€have€already€discussed.€€€ButÏthey€are€marked€in€other€ways.ÌRecall€that€certain€kinds€of€context„senstive€markedness€are€crucial€in€vowel€systems.€IfÏnonround€is€less€marked€than€round,€then€why€do€so€many€systems€have€the€round€[u]€and€notÏthe€unround€[ðUð]?à º àThis€is€presumably€related€to€the€enhancement€effect€of€rounding:Ð &(t$% ÐRounding€enhances€backness,€so€unround€back€vowels€are€harder€to€perceive.€€(Also€DeLacyÏ2002€suggests€that€[ðUððBð]€are€worst€in€sonority,€which€violates€the€requirement€vowels€should€beÐ *l&' Ðsonorous.)ÌÌà  àThus,€there€must€be€additional€constraints€on€feature€combinations€that€can€conflict€withÐ -`)* Ðthe€context€free€markedness€constraints€that€I€concentrate€on€in€this€paper.€€Although€/ðUð/€isÐ ² Ðunmarked€on€the€context„free€markedness€dimensions,€it€must€also€be€subject€to€constraints€thatÏpenalizes€its€particular€òòcombination€óóof€features.€€When€we€evaluate€combinations,€/u/€isÐ ªø Ðpreferable€because€of€the€enhancement€effect€of€rounding,€which€/ðUð/€lacks.Ð ¦ô ÐÌà  àThis€is€in€contrast€for€example€to€front€vowels€where€rounding€is€marked€due€to€theÏcontext„free€markedness€constraints€€(presumably,€by€the€way,€rounding€is€marked€because€itððsÏmore€articulatorily€complex)€and€it€is€not€good€for€anything€else.€€Therefore,€roundingÏmarkedness€is€not€in€conflict€with€anything€that€prefers€rounding,€so€unrounded€front€vowelsÏare€always€preferable.ÌÌò ò6.€Conclusionó óÐ †Ô  ÐI€hope€to€have€shown€that€although€languages€differ€in€their€choice€of€epenthetic€vowel,€thatÏchoice€is€nevertheless€constrained€by€markedness€constraints€and€the€nature€of€the€vowelÏsystem.€€There€is€some€free€reranking:€whether€[+low]€or€[„low]€is€less€marked€is€a€language„¼particular€matter.€€But€all€other€variability€can€be€accounted€for€by€conflict€among€universallyÏranked€constraints:€the€epenthetic€vowel€is€the€least€marked€vowel€possible€given€the€contentsÏof€the€languageððs€vowel€system.ÌThis€accounts€for€the€majority€of€cases.€€There€are€still€a€few€where€vowels€which€are€markedÏin€anyoneððs€calculation€are€nevertheless€found€in€epenthesis,€where€we€expect€the€unmarked.€ÏIn€a€number€of€cases€these€seem€to€be€due€to€contextual€effects€which€outrank€the€effects€of€theÏconstraint€proposed€here.€Future€research€should€focus€on€determining€what€contextual€effectsÏexplain€the€remainder€of€the€cases.€More€research€is€also€needed€into€the€faithfulnessÏconstraints€that€yield€the€different€vowel€systems:€Some€systems€lack€vowels€that€I€(and€otherÏresearchers)€have€claimed€are€unmarked.€€It€is€intuitively€clear€that€these€are€the€result€ofÏconstraint€conflicts€but€the€details€of€the€vowel€faithfulness€constraints€remain€to€beÏdetermined.ÌÌò òAppendixó óÐ F” ÐIn€many€cases,€analyses€differ€on€the€description€of€the€vowel€system.€€In€all€of€these€cases€theÏresult€fits€my€generalizations€whichever€analysis€we€accept.€€I€have€listed€such€cases€under€theÏversion€that€seems€more€plausible.ÌÌò òi.€Schwa€Ô_ÔepenthesisÔ_Ô€„€no€ðUð€in€systemó óÐ 6$„ ! ÐDutch€(Booij€1995,€Warner€et€al€2001),€Sekani€(Hargus€1988),€Tigre€(Raz€1983),€Hindi€loansÏ(except€[ðVð]€word„intial€[s]€clusters;€Koshal€1978),€AwngiÔ_Ô€(Cushitic;€Hetzron€1997;€vowelÐ 2&€"# Ðwritten€ðBð€is€described€as€high),€Ô_ÔMorrocan€Arabic€(Heath€1987),€Lenakel€(/ðBð/€€has€[ðUð]€allophoneÐ .'|#$ Ðas€well;€Kager€1999),€Berber€(Kossman€and€Stroomer€1987,€although€contrast€Dell€andÏElmedlaoui€1985€who€analyze€syllabic€consonants€instead€for€their€dialect),€MalayalamÏ(dialects€have€either€/ðBð/€or€/ðUð/,€€not€both;€Sadanandan€1999),€German€(Wiese€1996),€English;Ð "*p&' Ðfrom€deLacy€2002:€Chukchi,€Itelman,€Karo€Batak,€Ladahki,€Malay,€Mongolian,€Wolof.ÌÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôò òÔ_Ôii.€[i]Ô_Ô€Ô_ÔepenthesisÔ_Ô,€no€[ðBð]€or€[ðUð]€in€systemÐ -d)* Ðó óYawelmaniÔ_Ô€(Archangeli€1984;€changes€to€[u]€by€harmony),€€Plains€Cree€(Wolfart€1973),€NisghaÐ ² Ð(Tarpent€1989;€[u]€or€low€vowels€by€context,€otherwise€[i]),€Ponapean€(Rehg€and€Sohl€1981;Ï[u]€or€copy€vowels€in€certain€context),Kð<ðÔ_ÔnniÔ_Ô€(Gur,€Northern€Ghana,€Cahill€1999;€Ô_Ô[iÔ_Ô,ðVð]€by€ATRÔ_ÔÐ ªø Ðharmony;€in€dorsal€contexts€[u,ð{ð]),€Cantonese€loans€(Cheng€1990,€Yip€1993),€NavahoÐ ¦ô Ð(McDonough€1990);€Yoruba€loans€(Pulleyblank€1988,€[u]€in€some€contexts),€Tongan,€MaoriÏ(Kitto€and€de€Lacy€to€appear),most€Arabic€dialects€(Ô_ÔFarwanehÔ_Ô€1995,€Haddad€1984€exceptÏSaudi,€Sudanese€/a/Ô_ÔÔ_Ô€Moroccan€/ðBð/);€from€deLacy€2002:€€Ô‡X…VXŠŠcôÔAlabama,€Manam,€€Ojibwa,€Pali,€Pilpil.Ð š è ÐÔ#†ŠcôŠXX…V"©#ÔÌÔ_Ôò òiii.€[ðUð]€Ô_ÔepenthesisÔ_Ô,€[ðBð]€also€in€systemó óÐ ’ à ÐÔ_ÔInorÔ_Ô€(Ô_ÔÔ_ÔEthiopian€Semitic,€Prunet€1996),€Korean€loans€(Tak€1996),€Tigrinya,€Amharic€(BuckleyÏ1997,€Leslau€1997:€traditional€transcription€is€/ðBð/,€but€is€high€vowel),€Chaha€(Banksira€2000),Ð Ž Ü  Ðmany€languages€of€Papua€New€Guinea€(Foley€1986,€Bruce€1984),€Kodava€(Kodagu)€(EbertÏ1996).ÌÌò òiv.€[ðUð]€Ô_ÔepenthÔ_Ô,€no€[ðBð]€in€systemó óÐ ~Ì  ÐYakima€Ô_ÔSahaptinÔ_Ô€(Hargus€2001),€Yimas€(New€Guinea,€Foley€1991),TabukanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSangir€(MaryottÏ1965),€Geððez€(Gragg€1997),€various€Dravidian€(Bright€1975,€Christdas€1988,€Shankara€BhatÏ1967),€Japanese€loans€(with€some€contextual€variation),€Karao€([a]€in€contexts€where€[ðUð]€isÐ vÄ Ðdisallowed)(Brainerd€1994).ÌÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôò òv.€[a]€Ô_ÔepenthesisÔ_Ô€ó óÐ j¸ ÐÔ_ÔAxinincaÔ_Ô€(Payne€1981),€Lardil€(Wilkinson€1988),€Marathi€(Pandharipande€1997),€BalochiÏ(Iranian,€Elfenbein€1997a),€Brahui€(Elfenbein€1997b),€Sundanese€(Stevens€1977),€WapishanaÔ_Ô€Ï(Arawakan,€Tracy€1972),€Iraqw€(Rose€1996),€Choctaw€(Nicklas€1975),€Klamath€(Barker€1964),ÌDakota€(Shaw€1980);€from€deLacy€2002:€€Coos,€Mabalay€Atayal,€Mesola€Italian.ÌÔ_ÔÌò òvi.€€Apparent€counterexamplesó óÐ V¤ ÐKhmer€has€[ðUððBð]€in€the€vowel€system€and€has€been€claimed€to€have€[ðBð]€epenthesis€in€minorÐ V¤ Ðsyllables.€€The€implicit€assumption€of€most€descriptions€is€that€this€is€some€kind€of€Ô_ÔepenthesisÔ_Ô€„Ïthat€vowelless€clusters€are€underlying€and€that€different€kinds€of€clusters€then€get€differentÏpronunciations,€ranging€from€no€Ô_ÔepenthesisÔ_Ô€to€aspiration€to€schwa.€€I€have€heard€these€examplesÏÔ_ÔÔ_Ôand€they€Ô_ÔÔ_Ôsound€like€different€kinds€of€phonetic€transition.€€When€a€sonorant€is€initial€in€theÏcluster,€the€transition€is€voiced€and€sounds€like€schwa.€Primary€sources€such€as€HendersonÏ(1952)€report€more€variation€than€later€analyses;€also€cf€€Huffman€(1972):€ð ðThere€appears€to€beÏa€phonetic€continuum€from€monosyllables€on€the€one€hand€and€disyllables€on€the€otherÌÌà  àÔ_ÔThe€facts€of€Temiar€are€similarÔ_Ô€.€€But€Ô_ÔGafosÔ_Ô€(1996:81),€notes€that€actually€there€are€moreÏvowel€qualities€in€the€minor€syllables€and€all€are€determined€by€context.à z àÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÐ .(|$% ÐÌà  àKaro€Batak€(Woolams€1996)€has€both€ðBð€and€ð`ð€in€system.€ðBð€epenthesis€is€optional€word„Ð &*t&' Ðinitially€before€a€nasal„voiceless€stop€cluster.€€ð`ð€does€not€occur€word„initially€(in€addition€toÐ "+p'( Ðother€restrictions€on€its€appearance)€which€accounts€for€the€need€for€a€different€epentheticÏvowel€in€that€position.Ð -h)* Їà  àDeLacy€(2002)€analyzes€Shipibo€(Lauriault€1948,€Elias€2000)€as€having€an€epentheticÏvowel€that€surfaces€as€[a]€or€[i]€depending€on€foot€position,€€although€there€is€[ðUð]€in€the€system.€Ð ®ü ÐHowever,€it€is€unclear€why€deLacy€analyzes€the€vowel€as€epenthetic.€€Elias€p.c.€informs€me€thatÏthere€are€no€situations€where€this€morpheme€occurs€without€a€€vowel,€so€the€evidence€indicatesÏthat€it€is€underlying.ÌÌà  àDschang€(Bird€1999)€loanwords€take€epenthetic€[i]€although€[ðUð]€is€in€the€system.€€TheÐ š è Ðloans€are€taken€from€languages€that€do€not€have€[ðUð],€which€may€be€relevant.€€It€seems€plausibleÐ – ä Ðthat€an€analysis€in€terms€of€different€phonology€for€vocabulary€strata€would€be€appropriate€inÏthis€case,€since€there€are€other€differences€in€loanwords:€they€allow€a€trill€consonant,€a€newÏtype€of€onset€cluster,€and€a€CVVC€syllable€type€that€are€not€allowed€elsewhere€in€the€language.€Ï(Thanks€to€Ingo€Plage€for€this€suggestion€about€the€treatment€of€differences€in€loan€epenthesis.)€ÏBird€notes€that€other€authors€have€analyzed€[ðUð]€as€the€realization€of€an€underlying€diphthongÐ ‚Ð  Ð[iu]€but€aside€from€Birdððs€own€arguments€against€this,€it€would€be€an€unlikely€choice€forÏepenthesis.ÌÌò òvii.€Epenthesis€of€marked€vowelsÐ rÀ Ðó óAs€noted€in€the€text,€[e]€epenthesis€is€not€partcularly€uncommon,€but€in€the€cases€that€are€wellÐ rÀ Ðunderstood€it€appears€that€contextual€factors€are€involved.€€Additional€cases€that€I€know€of€areÏthe€following.ÌÌà  àKitto€and€deLacy€note€French€and€Sekani€as€cases€where€the€epenthetic€vowel€is€[e]€andÏis€in€a€closed€syllable;€Sekani€(Hargus€1988)€also€appears€to€have€morphological€conditioning.€ÌÌ€€€€€€Mohawk€€€(Michelson€1989)€€has€[i€e€a]€epenthetic€in€different€environments.€€Itððs€possibleÏthat€none€of€these€are€totally€general,€as€all€her€rules€mention€very€specific€contexts.€€InÏparticular,€three€rules€for€epenthetic€[e]€rules€refer€to€stem€boundary;€€both€previous€vowel€andÏfollowing€C;€and€€previous€[e],€following€C,€and€word€final€final.ÌÌà  àThe€Athabaskan€language€Slave€has€a€(Rice€1989)€prothetic€initial€syllable€/he/€used€toÏmeet€a€minimal€word€effect.ÌÌà  àGalician€(Colina€1997)€has€the€same€€[e]€epenthesis€before€word€intial€clusters€as€inÏSpanish€(discussed€in€the€text).€Colina€also€argues€for€a€process€of€word„final€[e]€epenthesis,Ïwhere€it€would€be€in€an€open€syllable,€but€it€is€not€clear€that€this€is€really€a€productive€process.€ÏIn€a€dialect€of€Galician€which€has€optional€and€therefore€clearly€productive€word„finalÏepenthesis€(Martinez„Gil€1997)€€the€vowel€actually€surfaces€as€[i].ÌÌà  àSawai€(Whisler€1992)€has€word„final€epenthesis€of€[ðDð].€€Possibly€relevant€is€the€fact€thatÐ )l%& Ðother€vowels€are€subject€to€cooccurrence€restrictions€but€[ðDð]€can€cooccur€with€any€other€vowel.Ð *h&' Ðà  àÌÔ_Ôà  àIn€Gengbe€(mentioned€in€the€text),€there€are€two€kinds€of€epenthesis€argued€for.€€InitialÏepenthesis€of€e€seems€well€supported.€€It€appears€that€only€[e]€and€[a]€can€be€word€initial,€so€ifÐ -\)* Ðthe€epenthetic€vowel€has€to€be€nonlow,€[e]€would€be€the€only€choice.€€They€also€argue€for€someÏcases€of€final€epenthesis€but€these€donððt€seem€as€definitive€€„€they€can€equally€well€be€seen€asÏdeletion€rules.ÌÌà  àEpenthesis€of€[u]€is€sometimes€claimed€to€exist€but€it€is€unclear€whether€there€are€anyÏcases€that€donððt€involve€additional€contextual€conditioning.€€Epenthesis€in€Japanese€loans€is€notÏa€case€if€the€high€back€vowel€is€unrounded.€€In€addition,€Japanese€uses€different€vowels€inÏdifferent€vocabulary€strata€and€contextual€concerns€seem€to€be€relevant:€the€use€of€[u]€and€[o]Ïin€loans€instead€of€the€[i]€of€the€native€strata€allows€all€consonants€in€loan€words€to€be€realizedÏwithout€phonological€modification.€€(Thanks€to€Junko€Ito€for€this€observation.)€€€€TheÏððenunciative€vowelðð€in€Dravidian€is€sometimes€[u],€but€itððs€not€clear€whether€these€cases€areÏproductive€epenthesis;€in€the€languages€where€there€is€real€evidence€for€productivityÌthe€vowel€is€[ðUð].€€Fula€€has€both€[i]€and€[u]€epenthesis;€both€appear€to€be€morphologicallyÐ ‚Ð  Ðconditioned€(Paradis€and€Prunet€1989.)€€A€remaining€troublesome€case€is€Tangale€(Kidda€1993,ÏKenstowicz€1993).€€Although€it€is€unclear€how€this€affects€the€choice€of€the€epenthetic€vowel,Ïthere€is€definitely€something€unusual€about€the€relevant€phonology€in€Tangale,€which€involvesÏdeletion€of€a€vowel€in€a€rather€odd€context,€which€creates€impermissible€clusters,€which€mustÏthen€be€repaired€by€insertion€of€another€vowel.ÌÌò òNotesó óÐ f´ Ð*Thanks€to€the€audience€at€LP2002€for€comments,€especially€Philip€Spaelti,€Junko€Ito€and€IngoÏPlage,€and€to€Jose€Elias€for€help€with€data.ÌÌ1€Ô‡ôèì ôŠŠcôÔAlso€See€McCarthy€and€Taub€1992€for€a€review€of€problems€with€coronal€underspecification.Ô#†ŠcôŠ ôôèìÉ#ÔÐ Z¨ ÐÌÔ‡&̃&ŠŠcôÔ2€For€example:€Rose€1993€notes€central€vowels€€are€likely€to€be€epenthetic€where€they€occur,€otherwise€front€vowels,Ð R  Ðotherwise€a;€argues€front€vowels€are€likely€because€the€are€coronal€but€doesnððt€explain€the€rest€of€the€variablity.€ÏKitto€and€de€Lacy€(to€appear)€observes€that€schwa€is€likely€to€be€epenthetic,€and€€if€no€schwa,€i€and€a€are€common.€ÏKeren€Riceððs€work€surveys€variabilty€and€explains€it€by€different€representational€requirements;€these€connections€toÏthe€system€are€not€made.€ðUð€is€the€unmarked€vowel€in€Charm€and€Govt€theory.€€Beckman€1998€suggests€that€there€isÐ ² Ðno€universal€markedness€relationship€between€low€and€nonlow€vowels.ÌÌ3.€Given€the€wide€variety€of€vowel€feature€systems€that€have€been€proposed,€there€may€be€some€theories€in€whichÏthese€actually€are€rankings€of€features€of€the€same€class€or€along€the€same€dimension,€although€I€have€not€yetÏpursued€this€possibility.Ô#†ŠcôŠ&&̃ÆÉ#ÔÔ‡X…VXŠŠcôÔÐ ê#8 " ÐÔ#†ŠcôŠXX…V»Í#Ôò òÌBibliographyó óÐ Â%"$ ÐÌÔ‡X…VXŠŠcôÔAbaglo,€PooviÔ_Ô€and€Diana€Archangeli€1989€Language„particular€underspecification:€Gengbe€/e/€andÐ ¾' $& ÐYoruba€/i/.€LI€20€457„480.Ô#†ŠcôŠXX…V;Î#ÔÐ ª(ø$' ÐArchangeli,€Diana.€1984.€Underspecification€in€Yawelmani€phonology€and€morphology.€€MITÏdissertation.ÌBanksiraÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔDegifÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔPetrosÔ_Ô.€2000.€Sound€mutations:€the€Ô_ÔmorphophonologyÔ_Ô€of€Ô_ÔChahaÔ_Ô.€€JohnÏÔ_ÔBenjaminsÔ_Ô,€Philadelphia.Ð Š,Ø(+ ÐBarker,€M.A.R.€1964.€Klamath€grammar.€University€of€California€Press.€BerkeleyÌBeckman,€Jill.€1998.€Positional€faithfulness.€UMass€Amherst€dissertation.ÌBird,€Steven.€1999.€Dschang€syllable€structure.€In€van€der€Hulst€and€Ritter,€eds.€The€Syllable:Ïviews€and€facts.€€Mouton€de€Gruyter.ÌBooijÔ_Ô,€Geert.€1995.€€The€phonology€of€Dutch.€Clarendon€Press,€Oxford.ò òÐ ¢ð Ðó óBright,€William.€€1975.€The€Dravidian€Ô_ÔenunciativeÔ_Ô€vowel.€€In€Schiffman,€Harold€F€and€Carol€MÐ žì ÐEastman,€Dravidian€Phonological€Systems.€€University€of€Washington,€Seattle.€3„46ÌBrainerd,€Sherri.€1994.€The€phonology€of€Karao,€the€Phillipines.€€€Pacific€Linguistics€B€110.ÌBruce,€Les€1984.€The€Ô_ÔAlamblakÔ_Ô€language€of€Papua€New€Guinea€(East€Ô_ÔSepikÔ_Ô).€€PacificÏLinguistics€C€#€81.ò òÐ Ž Ü  Ðó óBuckley,€Eugene.€1997.€€Against€vowel€length€in€Ô_ÔTigrinyaÔ_Ô.€Studies€in€African€linguistics.€26:Ð Š Ø  Ð63„102.ÌCahill,€Michael€Clark.€1999.€Aspects€of€the€phonology€and€morphology€of€Kð<ðÔ_ÔnniÔ_Ô.€PhD€à *" àÐ ‚Ð  Ðdissertation,€Ohio€State€University.ÌCheng,€Lisa€Lai€Shen.€1990.€€Feature€geometry€of€vowels€and€co„occurrence€restrictions€inÏCantonese.€€WCCFL€9.€107„124.ÌÔ_ÔChristdasÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔPrathimaÔ_Ô.€1988.€The€phonology€and€morphology€of€Tamil.€PhD€Ô_ÔdissertataionÔ_Ô,ÏCornell.€ÌColina,€Sonia.€1997.€€Epenthesis€and€deletion€in€Galician:€an€optimality„theoretic€approach.€€in€ÏIn€Martinez„Gil€and€Morales„Front€1997.€235„267.ÌDeLacy,€Paul.€2002.€The€formal€expression€of€markedness.€€PhD€dissertation,€UMass€Amherst.ÌDell,€F€and€M€Elmedlaoui€1985€Syllabic€consonants€and€syllabification€in€Imdlawn€Tashlihiyt¼à  àBerber.€Journal€of€African€Languages€and€Linguistics€7:105„130.ÌEbert€Karen€H.€1996.€Kodava.€€Lincom€Europa.€€Munich.ÌElias,€Jose.€2000.€€El€acento€en€Shipibo.€MA€Thesis,€Universidad€National€Mayor€de€SanÏMarcos.ÌÔ_ÔElfenbeinÔ_Ô,€Josef.€1997a€Balochi€phonology.€Phonologies€of€Africa€and€Asia.€761„776.ÌElfenbeinÔ_Ô,€Josef.€1997€b€€Brahui€phonology.€Phonologies€of€Africa€and€Asia.€797„811ÌFarwanehÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔSamiraÔ_Ô.€1995.€Directionality€effects€in€Arabic€dialect€syllable€structure.€€PhDÏdissertation,€University€of€Utah.ÌFoley,€William€A.€€1991.€The€Ô_ÔYimasÔ_Ô€language€of€New€Guinea.€Stanford€U€Press.ÌFoley,€William€A.€1986.€The€Papuan€languages€of€New€Guinea.€€Cambridge€U€PressÏCambridge.ÌGafos,€Diamandis,€1996.€€The€articulatory€basis€of€locality€in€phonology,€€PhD€dissertation,ÏJohns€Hopkins€Department€of€Cognitive€Science.€ÌÔ_ÔGraggÔ_Ô,€Gene.€Ô_ÔGeððezÔ_Ô€phonology.€Phonologies€of€Africa€and€Asia.€169„186.ÌHaas,€Mary€R.€1940.€€Tunica.€€Extract€from€Handbook€of€American€Indian€Languages€vol.IV.ÌÔ_ÔHaddad,€Ô_ÔGhassanÔ_Ô€F.€1984.€Ô_ÔEpenthesisÔ_Ô€and€sonority€in€Lebanese€Arabic.€€Studies€in€theÏLinguistic€Sciences€14€57„88ÌHargusÔ_Ô,€Sharon.€€Initial€consonant€cluster€Ô_ÔmoraicityÔ_Ô€in€Yakima€Ô_ÔSahaptinÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔLSAÔ_Ô€handout€2001.ò òÐ *d&' Ðó óHargusÔ_Ô,€Sharon.€€1988.€The€lexical€phonology€of€Sekani.€€Garland€1988ò òÐ +`'( Ðó óHeath,€Jeffrey.1987€€Ablaut€and€ambiguity:€€phonology€of€a€Moroccan€à z àArabic€dialect.Ð ,\() ÐÔ_ÔSUNYÔ_Ô€€press.€AlbanyÐ  -X)* ÐHenderson,€Eugenie.€1952.€The€main€features€of€Cambodian€pronunciation.€BSOAS€14:€149„¼174.ÌHetzronÔ_Ô,€Robert.€1997€Ô_ÔAwngiÔ_Ô€Phonology.€€€Phonologies€of€Africa€and€Asia€€477„491ÌHualde,€Jose.€1991.€Unspecified€and€unmarked€vowels.€LI€22:€205„209.ÌHuffman,€Franklin€E.€1972.€The€boundary€between€the€monosyllable€and€disyllableò ò€ó óinÐ ¢ð ÐCambodian.€Lingua€29€54„66.ÌÔ‡X…VXŠŠcôÔHughes,€A.€and€P.€Trudgill.€1979.€English€accents€and€dialect.€€Edward€Arnold,€London.Ô#†ŠcôŠXX…VEá#Ôò òÐ ¢ ð Ðó óÔ_ÔKagerÔ_Ô,€Rene.1999.€Ô_ÔOptimalityÔ_Ô€Theory.€Cambridge€U€Press.ò òÐ Ž Ü Ðó óKaye,€Alan€S.€ed€1997€Phonologies€of€Africa€and€Asia€(including€the€Caucasus).€Winona€LakeÐ Š Ø ÐInd.€:€Eisenbraunsò òÐ † Ô  Ðó óKenstowicz,€Michael.€1993.€Phonology€in€generative€grammar.€€Oxford,€Blackwell.Ð ‚ Ð  ÐKidda,€Mairo.€1993.€€Tangale€phonology.€€Berlin,€Dietrich€Reimer.ò òÐ ~Ì  Ðó óKittoÔ_Ô,€Catherine€and€Paul€de€Lacy.€1999.€€Correspondence€and€Ô_ÔepentheticÔ_Ô€quality.€€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ԀРzÈ  ÐProceedings€of€Ô_ÔALFAÔ_Ô€VI.€€University€of€Toronto.€€181„200.ÌÔ_ÔKoshalÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔSanyuktaÔ_Ô.€1978.€Conflicting€phonological€patterns:€a€study€in€the€adaptation€of€EnglishÏloan€words€in€Hindi.€€Ô_ÔBahriÔ_Ô€Publications,€Chandigarh,€India.ÌKossmannÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔMaartenÔ_Ô€G.€and€Harry€J.€Ô_ÔStroomerÔ_Ô.€€Berber€Phonology.€€P.€of€A€and€A.€461„475.ÌLauriault,€James.€1948.€Alternative€mora„timing€in€Shipibo.€IJAL€14:€22„24.ÌÔ_ÔLeslauÔ_Ô,€Wolf€.€1997.€€Amharic€Phonology.€€Phonologies€of€Africa€and€Asia.399„430ÌLombardi,€Linda.€to€appear.€€Coronal€epenthesis€and€markedness.€€To€appear€in€Phonology.ÌLombardi,€Linda.€2001.€€Why€place€and€voice€are€different.€€In€Lombardi,€Linda€ed.,€SegmentalÏphonology€in€Optimality€Theory.€Cambridge€University€Press.ÌMaddieson,€Ian.€1984.€Patterns€of€sounds.€Cambridge€University€Press.€ÌMartnez-Gil,€Fernando€and€Alfonso€Morales-Front.€1997.€€€Issues€in€the€phonology€andÏmorphology€of€the€major€Iberian€languages.€Washington,€D.C.€:€Georgetown€University€Press.ÌMartnez-Gil,€Fernando.€1997.€Word„final€epenthesis€in€Galician.€€In€Martinez„Gil€andÏMorales„Front€1997.€269„340.ÌÔ_ÔMaryottÔ_Ô,€Kenneth€1965.€€The€phonology€and€Ô_ÔmorphophonemicsÔ_Ô€of€Ô_ÔTabukangÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSangirÔ_Ô.€€Ô_ÔPhillipineÔ_ÔÏsocial€science€review€26€111„26ÌMcCarthy,€John€J.€1994.€The€phonetics€and€phonology€of€Semitic€pharyngeals.€€€Keating,€P.Ïed.,€à  àPhonological€structure€and€phonetic€form:€Papers€in€€Laboratory€Phonology€III.€Ð 2!€ ÐCambridge€University€Press.€ÌMcCarthy,€John€J.€and€Alison€Taub.€1992.€€Review€of€Paradis€and€Prunet.€€Phonology€9:€363„¼à  à370.ÌMcDonough,€Joyce€M€1990€Topics€in€the€phonology€and€morphology€of€Navaho€verbs.ÌÔ‡X…VXŠŠcôÔMichelson,€Karin€1989€Invisibility:€vowels€without€a€timing€slot€in€Mohawk.€€In€Theoretical€perspectivesÐ &l"# Ðon€native€American€languages.€€eg€Donna€B€Gerdts€and€Michelson.€€SUNY€Press.ÌÔ#†ŠcôŠXX…Vºì#ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔNicklasÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔThurstonÔ_Ô€Dale.€€1975.€€Choctaw€Ô_ÔmorphophonemicsÔ_Ô.€€In€James€M€Crawford€ed€StudiesÐ ö'D$% Ðin€southeastern€Ô_ÔindianÔ_Ô€languages.€University€of€Georgia€Press,€Athens.ÌÔ_ÔPandharipandeÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔRajeshwariÔ_Ô€V.€1997.€€Marathi.€€Ô_ÔRoutledgeÔ_Ô,€London€and€New€York.ÌParadis,€Carole€and€Jean„Francois€Prunet.€1991.€€Phonetics€and€phonology€2:€The€special€statusÏà  àof€coronals:€internal€and€external€evidence.€€New€York:€Academic€Press.ÌParadis,€Carole€and€Jean„Francois€Prunet.€1989.€On€coronal€transparency.€Phonology€6:€317„Ð â,0)* Ð348.ÌPayne,€David€L.1981.€The€phonology€and€morphology€of€Ô_ÔAxinincaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔCampaÔ_Ô.€Summer€Institute€ofÏLinguistics,€University€of€Texas€at€Austin.ò òÐ ªø Ðó óPulleyblankÔ_Ô€Douglas€1988€Vocalic€Ô_ÔunderspecificationÔ_Ô€in€Yoruba€LI€19€233„70ò òÐ ¦ô Ðó óÔ_ÔPrunetÔ_Ô,€Jean„Francois.€1996.€€Guttural€vowels.€€in€Grover€Hudson€ed€Essays€in€Ô_ÔGurageÔ_ÔÐ ¢ð ÐLanguage€and€Culture.€€Wiesbaden:€Otto€Ô_ÔHarrassowitzÔ_Ô.ÌRaz,€Shlomo.€1983.€Tigre€grammar€and€texts.€Afroasiatic€dialects€4,€Malibu€CA:€Undena.ò ò€Ð š è Ðó óÔ_ÔÔ_ÔRehgÔ_Ô,€Kenneth€€and€Damian€G€Ô_ÔSohlÔ_Ô.€€1981.€€Ô_ÔPonapeanÔ_Ô€reference€grammar.€€University€ofÐ ž ì ÐHawaiiÌRice,€Keren.€1989.€€A€grammar€of€Slave.€€Berlin,€Mouton€de€Gruyter.ÌRice,€Keren.€2001.€€Featural€markedness€in€phonology:variation.€Invited€state€of€the€article.€¼à  àGLOT.€4.7€3„6,€4.8€3„7.ÌÔ_ÔRose,€Sharon€1996.€Variable€laryngeals€and€vowel€lowering.€Phonology€13€73„117.ÌÔ‡X…VXŠŠcôÔRose€1993.€€Ô_ÔCoronalityÔ_Ô€and€vocalic€Ô_ÔunderspecificationÔ_Ô.€€Toronto€working€papers€in€linguistics€12.€155„Ð †Ô  Ð77Ô#†ŠcôŠXX…VÊõ#ÔÐ rÀ  ÐSadanandan,€Suchitra€1999.€Malayalam€phonology€„€an€optimality€theoretic€approach.€PhDÏUSCÌÔ_ÔShankaraÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBhatÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔD.N.Ô_Ô€1967.€Descriptive€analysis€of€Tulu.ÌShaw,€Patricia.€€1980.€€Theoretical€issues€in€Dakota€phonology€and€morphology.€€GarlandÌSmolensky,€Paul.€1993.€Harmony,€markedness€and€phonological€activity.€€Paper€presented€at€¼à  àRutgers€Optimality€Workshop€and€revised€handout.Ì€Stevens,€Alan€M.€€1977.€On€local€ordering€in€Sundanese.€€LI€8€155„62ÌTakÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔJinÔ_Ô„Young€1996.€Variable€vowel€Ô_ÔepenthesisÔ_Ô€in€Korean„accented€English.€Proceedings€ofÏ20th€BU€conference.ÌTarpent,€Marie„Lucie.€€1989€A€grammar€of€the€Nisgha€language.€€PhD€University€of€Victoria.ÌTracy,€Frances€V.€1972.€Ô_ÔWapishanaÔ_Ô€phonology.€€Languages€of€the€Ô_ÔGuianasÔ_Ô,€ed€Joseph€GrimesÌWarner,€N.€et€al€2001.€The€phonological€status€of€Dutch€epenthetic€schwa.€Phonology€18:387„¼420.ÌÔ‡X…VXŠŠcôÔWhisler,€Ronald.€1992.€Phonology€of€Sawai.€€In€Phonological€Studies€in€Four€Languages€of€Malaku.€Ð *x ÐSIL,€University€of€Texas€at€Arlington.ÌÔ#†ŠcôŠXX…Vû#ÔWiese,€R.€1996.€The€phonology€of€German.€Oxford,€Clarendon€Press.Ð !P ÐWilkinson,€Karina€1988.€Prosodic€structure€and€Lardil€phonology.€LI€19:25„34.ÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔWolfartÔ_Ô,€H.€Ô_ÔChristophÔ_Ô.€1973.€Plains€Cree:€a€grammatical€study.ÌWoolams,€Geoff.€1996.€A€grammar€of€Karo€Batak,€Sumatra.€Canberra:€Australian€NationalÏUniversity.Ì€Yip,€Moira€1993.€Cantonese€loanword€phonology€and€Optimality€Theory.€€J€of€East€AsianÏLinguistics€2:€261„291